I agree with others about this being dense. it was a little hard to get through at times.

I liked the symbolisms in this though and how the end played out with Thistle and Hemlock.

I think where this picked up for me was halfway down page 6 - when Malfiore finds Abigore in the living room. Before this, at times, the writing was a tad confusing, but after this is when it got clearer.

All in all - I liked parts of this, but not sure I liked it as a whole. There is something niggling me about it, but I can't quite put my finger on what it is.

Good effort  

Renee

Everyone seems to think the writing is great, so it probably is. To me, it was a chore to get through, to be honest. Heavy reading that felt too wordy. My mind wandered a few times. Like Jeff, I was wondering if they were nude when you mentioned the tattoos on the breasts. I was also confused at times.

Someone mentioned something about symbolism and such and I felt this script was full of them even if I didn't recognize them. I think that's great and I try to use things like that in my scripts too. It gets very frustrating when the filmmakers don't get those at all or even the theme.

I do agree that this probably would work out fine as a film, it was just a tough read. I would suggest tightening your writing. Get to the point and be clear. Make it more reader friendly. A lot of filmmakers hate to read scripts. Make it easier for them.  

Not bad, but the large blocks of description really held me back from enjoying this.

Weighted Matrix: https://docs.google.com/spread.....TTUE&usp=sharing

Producer's Notes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NNGaVlrrpkjIfp-BRGjpTE03W1e5lZuRceJ3wQECYaI/edit?usp=sharing

23. Familiar by Sixteen - Horror - A mournful witch faces off against a vengeful spirit in the wake of her coven's dissolution.
Brief - An older bitch witch kills a younger witch, and there's a crow, and a huge cat...

Location(s)  - Bedroom, house exterior and interior
Cast -
Protagonist(s)  -  
MOTHER MALFIORE, 50s, tattooed
ABIGOR (and handler)
SISTER HEMLOCK, 20s, a veritable skeleton with skin
Genre & Marketability -
Comments  -  Great. A flying crow. No, wait!: A trained flying crow. (sigh... ) Would it be cheaper to CGI that crow or to find and schedule a live one? (OR FIND A LESS COSTLY STORY?!) This reads much more like a classic Judeo-Christian demonized witch story set in modern times than a modern witch story. Set design's gonna be a costly bitch for this. Pg6:
INT. LIVING ROOM - NIGHT
Malfiore enters. The room has returned to normal. She opens
a nearby window and exits.
Malifore exits through the window? Or, which would make more sense, Abigor? Done at pg7: "A huge cat as black as Abigor bursts out..." Too costly to produce. Extensive use of animals in shorts is exactly how you begin to understand the difference between writing pie-in-the-sky stories and stories that are budget minded = likely to be produced. I do appreciate your attention to detail, though.
Script format - fair. Action lines are a bit too detailed.
Final word - Can't afford to produce.

     Lo/Hi Estimated Budget Range
/      Screenplay Pages
= $      Estimated Cost Per Screen Minute

Adherence to Given Criteria:
Modern Witches and/or Warlocks - Nope. Classic witches in modern setting.
Horror - Yep

Well, if I needed a reason to drink in excess these past few weeks, this was it. Definitely didn't go over as I'd hoped. That's okay though.

A few things I'd like to address. I think most of the reviews are spot on in certain areas but personally I think my biggest shortcoming was clarity. There's a lot of allusions to backstory in this one, which I opted to infer rather than spell out for the audience in an overly expository fashion. As Kevin aptly pointed out, that runs the risk of the audience not getting enough to go on, a risk that was met on my part. I think a decent amount of the backstory came across but clearly there were still some issues for some people.

I initially had another idea for the OWC, which did not involve a backstory. In hindsight, I think I should have gone with that one. I'm not a fan of shorts and tend to conceive stories in feature terms. But when you've only got ten pages and a week to write something, it's definitely better to go with something simple so as your focus can go to more important things.

I also think I never really decided on whether to make Malfiore a hero or villain. I don't always think of those terms but when you have a character being stalked by something, I think you need to pick one and stick with it. In the end, I think I made her both, which yielded some interesting themes, I think, but again, those were sort of lost given the lack of context.

The dense writing... yeah. Sorry guys. I've always tended to overwrite, at least a little. In this case, I came in sort of rusty in terms of writing in general and ended up compacting a lot of paragraphs so as to meet the page limit. I hit the limit the first time then widdled it down to eight. I think I could've gone over it once more and tightened it up even further but I'd run out of time by then.

As for not being modern... eh. I suppose I could argue but I'll concede. The term seems to have been left up to at least some interpretation. I basically put the characters in a contemporary setting and wrote the script as is. I didn't try to cram in references to Facebook or anything like that. So in that sense, I wouldn't say it's "unmodern" but at the same time, you could set this in 2013 or, say, the 60s and it'd probably come out the same, which in a sense makes it unmodern.

Regardless, I did this for the challenge first and foremost. I tend to leave these up as is so people can see what I can do within the time constraints. That's the pleasure for me. And I definitely worked hard on this one. My deadline was earlier than midnight given work and things and I wrote all the way up until that point.

Thanks everyone for the feedback (Ray, I'm getting to you next).

Quoted from RayW Great. A flying crow. No, wait!: A trained flying crow. (sigh... ) Would it be cheaper to CGI that crow or to find and schedule a live one? (OR FIND A LESS COSTLY STORY?!) This reads much more like a classic Judeo-Christian demonized witch story set in modern times than a modern witch story. Set design's gonna be a costly bitch for this.

As I said, I wanted to have a little chat.

My initial idea was to pit a witch against a familiar. Simple as that. The next step is thinking about what kind of familiar. You think cats, dogs, rats, toads, birds, etc.

I'm not without experience in filmmaking so my next thought is... wait a minute. No animals, no children. Pain in the ass.

So, what I did... or rather tried to come up with creatures that could be done within a budget but could still be versions of cats or crows. So I came up with familiars that basically look like living shadows or silhouettes of cats and crows (as referenced in Abigor's first description, which was NOT intended to be flowery writing but rather taken literally). Make them so dark that they don't have any detail or sheen (the light just disappears into them). Almost like creatures made of ink.

That way, you can just create them with CGI and given the nature of the creatures, you don't have to go overboard with textures and whatnot, just some work on the outlines and two green eyes. In another film, you might have a crappy-looking CGI crow that is NOT supernatural but here, you could have something that looks strange and otherworldly as a result of how simply it's rendered.

If this sounds like I'm just throwing another crazy expenditure out there, let me know. And please explain. Personally, I think CGI is a lot more accessible than it used to be. Here in DC, there's shorts and features that are made for dirt cheap (four figures) and are still able to pull off some at least decent CGI work. I think if communicated properly in the script, these creatures could been recognized as not needing that much CG work done on them but still able to be rendered for full effect.

As for set design, I don't know. If there's mention of masks and tapestries, maybe cut that down to one tapestry. A wooden box with some flowers and a framed photo. Is that really that hard to deliver? I mean, if I can get away with some, great. But if something needs to be trimmed, it's only a matter of tweaking the script. If there's an ornate mask somewhere that's expensive or hard to find, it's not set in stone as far as the script goes. You can just write it out.

There's some gore effects down the line and perhaps the rune effects might need a little work but those are lovelies I decided to keep. I try to write as budget conscious as I can. I am NOT a pie-in-the-sky type of guy. I've been on 12+ hour sets and know how hard it can be to make the simplest things happen even with a script that's not particularly demanding. I write what I consider to be small, intimate stories where the benefit is that they can be done for less money. But I still try to find a balance, I think, so the script is actually worth making. Not everything with two actors and one room can be Clerks or Slacker. Sometimes, it'll just be boring and not worth a bunch of crew members smoking, guzzling energy drinks, losing sleep, and stressing out on set.

Mainly, I wanted to address the animal issue though. That's the most important thing.

Let me know what you think.

This script is kind of an interesting case study for me, James, and it highlights some of the problems for unknowns breaking through. The thing is, if I read this any other time other than an OWC, my experience would have been very different. In fact, if I knew going into it that it was a veteran writer, it would have been very different.

Because here's what happens: we're reading a bunch of OWCs, going though the pile, and some of them are by pretty new writers. Under those circumstances, a script has to earn our interest very quickly.

It's very similar to what happens with unknown writers in the spec market. A pro script gets the benefit of the doubt, so the reader reads on patiently waiting for the good stuff to happen. An unknown writer has to earn things pretty darn quick.

So as I'm reading this story, because I don't know it's a veteran writer, when things are unclear in the early going I don't give the writer a lot of rope. It's human nature.

I distinctly remember as things came together near the end thinking this was a good story. I just had trouble enjoying the whole journey because I wasn't sure things would come together. It's not the writer's fault. But then we will face this disadvantage everywhere as unknowns, so we have to be cognizant of it.

So it was good work.

Yo James, here's the read I promised!

I gotta agree with most of the reviewers - when there's lots of action lines, sometimes - even if the imagery is good, which it was in this very visual script - it can make for heavy reading. When there's not much white space or dialogue, the eye tends to skim down the page and vital bits can be missed.

This was a very ambitious story. I didn't read it originally and James pmed me for a read which I was happy to do. I think if I had've read it without knowing the author, I would've pegged it for someone who knew their stuff. And James does.

It was well writte but I couldnt really get into it, which sounds like a contradiction but people will know what I'm talking about.  

Thanks man! More of the same means I've got some work to do.

Indeed, I am working on the writing. I've already broken up a lot of the paragraphs and increased the script's length by about half a page. It's the same text (minus a few touchups to the opening; no more "naked people") but I think it reads faster psychologically speaking. Nevertheless, I'm still going to go through it once again and see if I can't whittle it back something close to its original length so it reads even smoother.

Quoted from James McClung So, what I did... or rather tried to come up with creatures that could be done within a budget but could still be versions of cats or crows. So I came up with familiars that basically look like living shadows or silhouettes of cats and crows (as referenced in Abigor's first description, which was NOT intended to be flowery writing but rather taken literally). Make them so dark that they don't have any detail or sheen (the light just disappears into them). Almost like creatures made of ink. That way, you can just create them with CGI and given the nature of the creatures, you don't have to go overboard with textures and whatnot, just some work on the outlines and two green eyes. In another film, you might have a crappy-looking CGI crow that is NOT supernatural but here, you could have something that looks strange and otherworldly as a result of how simply it's rendered. If this sounds like I'm just throwing another crazy expenditure out there, let me know. And please explain. Personally, I think CGI is a lot more accessible than it used to be. Here in DC, there's shorts and features that are made for dirt cheap (four figures) and are still able to pull off some at least decent CGI work. I think if communicated properly in the script, these creatures could been recognized as not needing that much CG work done on them but still able to be rendered for full effect. As for set design, I don't know. If there's mention of masks and tapestries, maybe cut that down to one tapestry. A wooden box with some flowers and a framed photo. Is that really that hard to deliver? I mean, if I can get away with some, great. But if something needs to be trimmed, it's only a matter of tweaking the script. If there's an ornate mask somewhere that's expensive or hard to find, it's not set in stone as far as the script goes. You can just write it out. There's some gore effects down the line and perhaps the rune effects might need a little work but those are lovelies I decided to keep. I try to write as budget conscious as I can. I am NOT a pie-in-the-sky type of guy. I've been on 12+ hour sets and know how hard it can be to make the simplest things happen even with a script that's not particularly demanding. I write what I consider to be small, intimate stories where the benefit is that they can be done for less money. But I still try to find a balance, I think, so the script is actually worth making. Not everything with two actors and one room can be Clerks or Slacker. Sometimes, it'll just be boring and not worth a bunch of crew members smoking, guzzling energy drinks, losing sleep, and stressing out on set. Mainly, I wanted to address the animal issue though. That's the most important thing. Let me know what you think.

I just wanted you to know that I DID remember this item from the other thread, I don't have the time right now to provide a well thought out reply, but didn't want you to see that I was blabbin' to some folks and blowing you/this off.

I'll get back to this later; today/tomorrow, but soon-ish.
Cool?

Quoted from James McClung So I came up with familiars that basically look like living shadows or silhouettes of cats and crows (as referenced in Abigor's first description, which was NOT intended to be flowery writing but rather taken literally). Make them so dark that they don't have any detail or sheen (the light just disappears into them). Almost like creatures made of ink. That way, you can just create them with CGI and given the nature of the creatures, you don't have to go overboard with textures and whatnot, just some work on the outlines and two green eyes. In another film, you might have a crappy-looking CGI crow that is NOT supernatural but here, you could have something that looks strange and otherworldly as a result of how simply it's rendered. Fair enough. But this clarification idea expressed above only saves a little PITA in post From the screenplay: Code Abigor, a raven the size of a hawk, swoops in from behind her and perches at the foot of a bed. His feathers are so dark, he resembles a living shadow. His green eyes glow. If you really want this to be a shadow then straight out state so. Code ABIGOR, a raven's solid otherworldly shadow, swoops in from behind her and perches at the foot of a bed. Skip all the cake walking about feathers and resembling. And the green eyes. Screwwit. If it looks like a bird call it a bird. But if it looks like a solid shadow call it a solid shadow. If this sounds like I'm just throwing another crazy expenditure out there, let me know. And please explain. Although not crazy, it is a genuine expense. Someone's gotta be paid to do the actual work, or likely will. Google your local DC CG artists and start calling them. See what their rates are for what you describe. Don't at all be surprised if it's north of $100/hr of work which'll render a few seconds of finished effects. So, do the math on the numbers of CGI SFX shots the story has and multiply that by $50/second, (30frames/sec for most digital film shown on computers.) Rate X Time = Cost. Easy as Personally, I think CGI is a lot more accessible than it used to be. True. But it still has an expense, even just hunting down someone to do it. Here in DC, there's shorts and features that are made for dirt cheap (four figures) and are still able to pull off some at least decent CGI work. I think if communicated properly in the script, these creatures could been recognized as not needing that much CG work done on them but still able to be rendered for full effect. Agreed. Now the tough part is to either A) produce and direct this yourself, or B) find a producer/director that has the equipment & financing but none of their own ideas to pursue and let them spend their money on it. Hitting a bullet with a bullet. Yep. That option B. also means your screenplay is likely competing with other screenplays, which brings this perspective back to my comment in my director's notes. Quoted Text Would it be cheaper to CGI that crow or to find and schedule a live one? (OR FIND A LESS COSTLY STORY?!) As for set design, I don't know. If there's mention of masks and tapestries, maybe cut that down to one tapestry. A wooden box with some flowers and a framed photo. Is that really that hard to deliver? I mean, if I can get away with some, great. But if something needs to be trimmed, it's only a matter of tweaking the script. If there's an ornate mask somewhere that's expensive or hard to find, it's not set in stone as far as the script goes. You can just write it out. Well... a director/producer's NOT going to follow any script literally word by word, I assure you, no matter the budget. The producer's going to fiddle-f#ck with the screenplay on rewrite. The director's going to fiddle-f#ck with the screenplay on rewrite. The actor's going to fiddle-f#ck with the screenplay on set. The actual locations secured are going to change the story. The editor's going to fiddle-f#ck with the best shots and audio received from the DoP & audio engineer. And then the producer and director are going to fiddle-f#ck with the fat cut down to the final cut. So, don't get too wrapped up in tapestries, wood boxes, and vials of blood hanging from gold vs. silver necklaces. So much goes out of the writer's hand once the screenplay's rights to produce are released. Ask Pia for confirmation. It's a sore subject for her, I imagine. There's some gore effects down the line and perhaps the rune effects might need a little work but those are lovelies I decided to keep. I try to write as budget conscious as I can. I am NOT a pie-in-the-sky type of guy. I've been on 12+ hour sets and know how hard it can be to make the simplest things happen even with a script that's not particularly demanding. I write what I consider to be small, intimate stories where the benefit is that they can be done for less money. But I still try to find a balance, I think, so the script is actually worth making. Not everything with two actors and one room can be Clerks or Slacker. Sometimes, it'll just be boring and not worth a bunch of crew members smoking, guzzling energy drinks, losing sleep, and stressing out on set. Yup. It'll all get changed. All the details. Some will remain. In the final days of my being a regular around here I'd chant "Write good bones to your stories!" because the fundamental story is all that's guaranteed to have any vestigial recognition after a screenplay has gone into the actual production sausage machine. Pretty much expect to be upset over what-the-f#ck?! was done to your screenplay. LOL!

Did that confirm or clarify some of what you wondered about?

Quoted from RayW Did that confirm or clarify some of what you wondered about?

It does, namely what needs to be communicated about the creatures needs to be said outright, not implied.

That said, I anticipated a similar response in regards to the cost of CGI and the fact that screenplays get inevitably rewritten to the point where they might not have any semblance of how they started out. The latter, I know all too well. It's been drilled into me for years and I think I've finally come to accept it in my own way.

The cost of CGI, I'm not as familiar with so I appreciate some of the info you've provided. I just knew that it's cheaper and more accessible than it used to be and is so even at the micro-budget level. Still, perhaps it's important to consider that it's not something you can fall back on at all times.

I'll see if I can't tweak the script and make a little easier on producer eyes. Honestly, getting produced wasn't my primary goal with this one; it was to write *something* after a long period of not writing. I've always participated in the OWC for the challenge and never expected my entries to be good enough to even care whether they'd be produced or not. This one, I kinda like though, despite its lukewarm response, and I did try to write it at least somewhat in the realm of possible production, even if it didn't turn out great.

Thanks, man!